by Joseph DeMaio, ©2022
(Mar. 1, 2022) — From time to time, your humble servant’s P&E postings generate comments deserving response. On most occasions, the responses are posted in the same place. When a longer, more comprehensive response is indicated, a separate post is offered. Such is the case with the following response to the comments of Mr. Becker found here.
As a prefatory “head’s up,” the following discussion focuses on the perennial issue of presidential (and vice-presidential) eligibility as a “natural-born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. I know…, I know…, you’re probably saying: “Good Lord, not again! Will no one rid The P&E of this meddlesome DeMaio eligibility-denier?”
If that is your mindset or if you’ve “heard this all before,” you should go back to what you were doing before reading this far. On the other hand, if you wish to hear “the rest of the story,” read on. Rest assured, the only reason the matter resurfaces now is that misinformation, allowed to stand unexamined and unchallenged – even in response to an editorial – often metastasizes into something mistaken for the truth.
Bear in mind, faithful P&E readers, that the referenced P&E “Are You Happy Now?” post from which the Becker comment and this response blossoms addressed primarily whether those who voted for “Let’s Go Brandon” in 2020 are happy now. It did not focus on the “natural born Citizen” eligibility question or the related “citizen grandfather clause” exception. As background, the citizen grandfather clause allowed, as a time-constrained exception to the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” restriction, persons who were U.S. native-born or by law naturalized to be eligible to the presidency.
That said, Mr. Becker (and many others) are seemingly quite happy now…, some likely even giddy over the gift to Afghan Taliban hyenas of billions in military equipment and a huge functioning airbase; $6.00/gal. gasoline; and rates of inflation not seen for 40 years. The term “comatose” comes to mind.
But I digress.
Instead of focusing on answering the question posed, Mr. Becker (and others) again pounced on the tangential discussion in the post questioning the constitutional bona fides of Kamala Harris. Harris was mentioned, of course, because if the Goofball were to be impeached or otherwise removed from office, unless the Supreme Court interceded – an extremely unlikely scenario – she would become the president, albeit one with questionable qualifications.
The commenters came to her defense, as well as to the defense of the man many believe was the first usurper of the presidency, Chester A. Arthur and, of course, the Second Usurper in Chief (“SUC”), Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. In addition to discounting the importance of the citizen grandfather clause in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5, discussed here, central to Mr. Becker’s defense was the claim that the Founders believed that the terms “native born and natural born meant the same thing.”
Really? Let us examine that assertion.
As discussed here, Kamala Harris may well be ineligible because although she was born in Oakland, California, and thus under existing law a “citizen” and/or a “native-born citizen,” neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at that time.
Those facts, in turn, raise serious questions as to whether she is a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated by the Founders when viewed against the backdrop of § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s tome, The Law of Nations. An 18th Century Swiss philosopher and jurist, Emmerich de Vattel has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court as being “the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution [i.e., between 1776 and 1826]. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826).” U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n. 12 (1977).
This acknowledgment from the decision is important because it also confirms that for the “50 years after the Revolution,” – including when the Constitution was being drafted, signed and ratified – de Vattel’s treatise was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting…,” quoting Founder Benjamin Franklin. Id. The Court has recently reaffirmed that de Vattel was “the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations…” (Emphasis added). See Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 496 (2019).
Moreover, insofar as presidential eligibility is concerned, it is a topic which remains unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court or a ratified constitutional amendment. A denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not a decision on the merits. And please, spare me the references to Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana and the article by law professors Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural-Born Citizen.’”
Mr. Becker claims that “as to the Founders, native born and natural born meant the same thing.” If that were documented as true (it is not), there would have been no need for inclusion of the citizen grandfather clause in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution at all. And the fact that by lapse of time, the citizen grandfather clause is no longer operative does not mean that its original inclusion in the Constitution no longer sheds light on the original intent of the Founders.
Additionally, any reliance by the commenter on the writings of St. George Tucker in purported support of the assertion that the Founders deemed the two terms as interchangeable – recalling that although St. George Tucker was a lawyer, he was not one of the Founding Fathers signing the Constitution – is misplaced. This is because St. George Tucker misquotes the Constitution in his analysis and Mr. Becker repeats the misquotation in his comment.
Specifically, St. George Tucker substitutes the term “native born” – extracted from his own cranium – for the actual language used by the Founders, i.e.,: “natural born.” This substituted alteration is not unlike the ellipsis chicanery practiced by the Congressional Research Service in its series of memoranda and reports on the presidential eligibility issue, discussed here, here and here.
On the other hand, Mr. Becker’s earlier citation to § 1473 of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution” accurately quotes the Constitution’s actual language, i.e., that “[n]o person except a natural-born Citizen” (emphasis added) shall be eligible to the presidency, subject to the citizen grandfather clause exception.
Furthermore, Becker’s quote from Justice Story’s analysis of the citizen grandfather clause as impacting presidential eligibility itself undercuts the claim that the two terms mean the same thing. Justice Story states in § 1473: “This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president [i.e., the citizen grandfather clause] is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.” (Emphasis added)
A “naturalized citizen” is neither a “native-born citizen” nor a “natural-born citizen.” A naturalized citizen is the product of legal proceedings; a native-born citizen or a natural-born citizen is a result of birth in the nation, but not any legal proceeding. And while all natural born citizens are also native born citizens, not all native born citizens are natural born citizens. Think Venn diagrams.
As to the natural-born citizen, that category requires, in addition to birth in the nation, citizenship in the nation by both parents of the person born at the time of birth. This is the core principle of § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise and as recognized by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), abrogated by the 19th Amendment (1920). Kamala Harris cannot claim that her parents were U.S. citizens when she was born, because they were not.
Justice Story correctly recognized that the citizen grandfather clause created qualified, temporary eligibility by way of allowing, as a time-limited exception to the natural born Citizen requirement, a naturalized citizen to be president. After the time restriction expired, no naturalized United States citizen could thereafter be president. See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.” (Emphasis added)
Had the Founders intended that a “native-born” citizen could be eligible, they would have said so. They did not. Indeed, they said just the opposite. A “Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” is not the same as a “natural born Citizen.”
If Mr. Becker’s reliance on Justice Story is valid, then those who were citizens in 1789 – when the Constitution was finally adopted upon ratification by the requisite number of states – were naturalized citizens, neither native-born nor natural-born. Were the contrary true, as claimed by the commenter, the existing language of the Constitution, crafted by the Founders rather than by St. George Tucker, would have been mere surplusage. It is not.
In summary, Justice Story reinforces the conclusion that even the Founders realized that there was a distinction between a “citizen” – whether denominated a “naturalized citizen” or a “native born citizen” – and a “natural born Citizen.” Again, if there were no distinction between or among these differing classes of citizens, then there would have been no need for the citizen grandfather clause at all.
Finally, Justice Story’s additional observation in § 1473 that the intent of the Founders was to “cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners…” (emphasis added) to insinuate themselves into the office of the presidency simply cannot be squared with the theory that, instead, they intended only to cut off “some” chances or even “half of the chances” of such attempts by adopting an interpretation of the eligibility clause allowing one or the other – but not both – of the parents of a child claiming “natural born Citizen” status to suffice.
Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, it is your humble servant’s view that Mr. Becker’s assertion that the Founders considered the terms “native-born” and “natural-born” as being synonymous within the language and meaning of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution is, respectfully, wrong.
Mr. DeMaio is spot on. Sadly, his statements will again be misconstrued and deceptively altered by those who are eager and wiling to ignore the intentions of our Founding Fathers – oh, excuse me, our Founding Persons.
See also:
http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/is-america-ready-for-a-thai-vice-president.html
One final post before this article drops off the landing page.
By now it should be objectively clear that native = native born = natural born. But one final post.
Justice William Johnson was born in South Carolina, attended Princeton and was tutored in the law by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (a Framer Of the Constitution), passed the bar, was elected to the South Carolina House Of Representatives, was appointed as an associate justice of the state Court of General Sessions and Common Pleas and a member of the state’s Constitutional Court. President Jefferson nominated him to the US Supreme Court in 1804.
In his dissenting opinion in the case of Shanks v DuPont, Justice Johnson wrote,
“By an act of the state passed in 1712, the common law of Great Britain was incorporated into the jurisprudence of South Carolina. In the year 1782, when this descent was cast, it was the law of the land, and it becomes imperative upon these appellants after admitting that their parent [Ann Shanks] was a native born citizen of South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of South Carolina [Thomas Scott].”
Both Thomas Scott and his daughter Ann Shanks were born in South Carolina before the Revolution. Justice Johnson calls them both native born citizens.
Justice Johnson goes on,
“It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community”
Justice Johnson unequivocally says Ann Shanks (née Scott) became a natural born citizen of South Carolina on July 4th, 1776.
Side out
“He [naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction.” Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/738/
“During the founding, “natural born Citizen” meant the same thing as “native born citizen.” It is only in later years that the the term “native born citizen” came to mean a child born in the United States without any reference to the citizenship of his or her parents.” Mario Apuzzo
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/difference-between-natural-and-native.html
“Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1. A ” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/163/
Interesting take on Rafael E. Cruz, plus all that buzz about ‘Born a citizen’ blather. From the following website:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Natural-born_citizen
Ann Coulter’s analysis
Ann Coulter analyzed “natural born Citizen” as follows:[8]
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born – but only by “naturalization,” i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.”
[8] https://www.wnd.com/2016/01/why-ted-cruz-is-ineligible/#EF5KMBKc1ijKYzSK.03
That’s right, Ann Coulter – that’s why no current US citizenship/naturalization laws nor the 14th Amendment contains the phrase “natural born Citizen”. Why? Because, Congress cannot deem nor grant natural born Citizenship upon anyone. A natural born Citizen occurs through the act of nature – born in THE country to two citizens of THAT country. Congress only makes STATUTORY US citizens.
Courts in 2016 ruled Cruz is a natural-born citizen.
Coulter’s 2016 comments were made before those court rulings.
The Founders of the US Constitution, who settled on the natural-born citizenship requirement for president and vice president, were very wise. Doesn’t it make sense that we would require the POTUS and VP to be 100% US citizens and have no loyalties to another foreign country? Furthermore, there should be no doubt about the birth history (date, location, parental citizenship, etc.) of the candidates running for these offices. The fact there are so many uncertainties/doubts regarding Obama’s place of birth, validity of his birth certificate, early life history and education should have raised red flags from the start. I was astonished after reading Obama’s biography when he was running for president, that very few were objecting to him. And furthermore, those who did were silenced and labeled “birthers”. The same goes for Harris. As a frequent reader of P&E I appreciate the folks who are keeping this issue alive and giving great historical information about the true meaning of natural-born citizen.
Fun fact: DeMaio and others believe that native = natural born based on Vattel. Well you know who else says that native = natural born?
William Blackstone in “Commentaries on the Laws of England.”
Specifically Book 1 Chapter 10 – “OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES.” [From the title this is chapter is about aliens and natives. Denizens being a separate in-between status]
“THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.” [People are either aliens or natural born subjects. He does use the term natives. But wait.]
“But the oath of allegiance may be tendered to all persons above the age of twelve years, whether natives, denizens, or aliens” [instead of using the term natural born, he uses the term natives. But above he said the people are either aliens or natural born subjects]
“…natural-born subjects having a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born within the king’s ligeance …The same is also in some degree the case of aliens; though their rights are much more circumscribed … I shall however here endeavour to chalk out some of the principal lines, whereby they are distinguished from natives”
[Begins saying natural born subjects have certain rights, aliens have restricted rights and he is now going to distinguish alien rights from those of natives]
“THESE are the principal distinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives” [He ends the chapter again substituting natives for natural born subjects.]
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp
This creates an interesting question for DeMaio and the rest.
Was Washington using Blackstone’s or Vattel’s definition of natives on April 30th, 1777 when he wrote “You will therefore send me none but Natives, & Men of some property, if You have them—I must insist that in making this Choice You give no Intimation of my preference of Natives, as I do not want to create any invidious Distinction between them & the Foreigners”?
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0301
Mr. DeMaio, “See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. … He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)
Both of Justice Douglas’ and Chief Justice Marshall’s statements are true if Native born = Native = Natural Born. That is how synonyms work.
Mr. DeMaio, “Had the Founders intended that a “native-born” citizen could be eligible, they would have said so. ”
They could have also said “No Person except a native Citizen” was eligible. That is how synonyms work.
Mr. DeMaio, “If that were documented as true (it is not), there would have been no need for inclusion of the citizen grandfather clause in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution at all.”
Well, no, you would still need the grandfather clause for those born in a foreign land.
Justice Story pointed this out in the sentence you essentially ellipsized out of § 1473.
“ It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, WHO WERE BORN IN A FOREIGN LAND, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.” (Capitalizations added)
We see this same sentiment in the August 9th debates at the Constitutional Convention.
“Col. MASON highly approved of the policy of the motion. Were it not that many NOT NATIVES OF THIS COUNTRY had acquired great merit during the revolution, he should be for restraining the eligibility into the Senate, to NATIVES.” (Capitalizations added)
And James Wilson responded that it was unfair to people like himself who were helping to form this government and would be shutout of it because of the “circumstance of HIS NOT BEING A NATIVE”. (Capitalizations added)
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_809.asp
James Wilson was born in Scotland and was not native born/native/natural born to the US. He needed the grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President.
BTW, Col. Mason’s suggestion is illogical as there were no natives in the US in 1787 who were over the age of 11 at least according to Mr. DeMaio and some others.
Reply from the author:
————————
Professor Becker is correct: the sweep of the citizen grandfather clause extended as well to those born on foreign soil, yet who were “Declaration of Independence citizens” of the United States when the Constitution was ratified and finally adopted. Stated otherwise, the reason it extended to those persons was because they were born on foreign soil.
That fact, however, has nothing to do with the circumstance that the Constitution itself (and under some theories, the Declaration of Independence in 1776) bestowed “citizenship” on those foreign-born persons as a matter of man-made law rather than as a matter of birth.
Thus, for presidential eligibility purposes, those “grandfathered” persons enjoyed citizenship as naturalized citizens, not natural-born citizens. As confirmed by the Supreme Court in Schneider v. Rusk, a naturalized citizen is not a natural-born citizen and is accordingly ineligible to the presidency. The Constitution speaks in terms of a “natural born Citizen,” but is devoid of the neologism “natural born citizenship.” That term is an extra-constitutional, concocted one utilized by some to “shoehorn” or “fudge” purported presidential eligibility under the 14th Amendment and the decision in Wong Kim Ark. Nice try…, but no cigar.
Like it or not, with the exception of those individuals who might claim the benefits of the citizen grandfather clause at the dawning of the Republic, it remains your humble servant’s opinion that the Founders sought to preclude all persons other than a “natural born Citizen,” as contemplated under § 212 of the de Vattel treatise, from the presidency, including naturalized citizens.
For those who don’t like it, they should proceed with getting a constitutional amendment circulated, ratified and adopted.
It is undisputed that only natural-born citizens can serve as the president (and vice president, per the 12th Amendment).
There also really is no dispute that the Framers didn’t believe they were natural-born citizens of the United States, as they were born natural-born subjects of the United Kingdom; the United States did not exist when they were born.
But it requires several rather speculative leaps of logic to conclude the Framers’ inclusion of natural-born citizen in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Vattel, an author who never wrote the words “natural-born citizen.”
And every court that has considered the meaning of natural-born citizen has concluded, from the guidance provided by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, that (minor exceptions notwithstanding) everyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen.
Response from Joseph DeMaio:
————————–
Perhaps Mr. Sherman can explain — and justify — the erroneous cornerstone of Justice Gray’s opinion in the Wong Kim Ark decision, i.e., his “misstatement” that Congress in 1795 “reenacted, in the same words” the language of the 1790 Naturalization statute, which prior law had included the term “natural born citizens” when describing children born “beyond sea” to U.S citizen parents, as discussed here: (“In the Same Words?” – The Post & Email (thepostemail.com)).
Not only did Congress NOT “re-enact’ the 1795 statute “in the same words” as the 1790 statute, it specifically REPEALED the words “natural born” before the word “citizens” as had previously appeared in the language of the older statute, seemingly in belated recognition that it conflicted with Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution and that a statute could not amend the Constitution.
Justice Gray’s “error” (let us not label it an intentional “misrepresentation”… yet) infects the entirety of the remainder of his opinion, rendering it virtually useless in analyzing the “natural born Citizen” restriction in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the “guidance” Mr. Sherman claims to be provided by that decision is, respectfully, misguided.
And while he’s at it, Mr. Sherman may want to take a stab at explaining why the Wong Kim Ark decision — which addressed EXCLUSIVELY the question of what constituted a U.S. “citizen” under the 14th Amendment — has any precedential import at all with regard to the entirely separate question of what constitutes a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5.
Stated otherwise, why are not all of the references therein to who is (and who is not) a “natural born citizen” — in generic as opposed to presidential eligibility contexts –“dicta, pure and simple….” See C. Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. Law Rev. 1, 19 (1968).
At the time he wrote his article, Charles Gordon was the General Counsel, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has cogently noted: “Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it…” See, Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 351, n. 12. (2005).
Side out.
Regardless of whether anyone personally agrees with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, various courts hearing eligibility cases expressly cited and relied on it. The guidance Wong Kim Ark did actually provide to those courts is readily discernible.
Similarly, some of these courts explained why they used Wong Kim Ark in their rulings. Even assuming Wong Kim Ark isn’t binding precedent, courts may still find it persuasive and employ it. So they did.
Mere disagreement with the Wong Kim Ark ruling, or other courts’ reliance on it, doesn’t nullify the legal force of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, or the rulings of the courts that cited it.
The courts already have ruled. And their rulings can’t be undone.
DeMaio: “the erroneous cornerstone of Justice Gray’s opinion in the Wong Kim Ark decision, i.e., his “misstatement” that Congress in 1795 “reenacted, in the same words” the language of the 1790 Naturalization statute”
I’m confused by his use of the term “cornerstone of Justice Gray’s opinion.”
How specifically did the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts and their requirements for child born overseas to citizen parents impact a case about a child born in the United States to alien parents?
Wouldn’t his discussion of them pretty much be the definition of dicta?
How can such a discussion be called a cornerstone?
The following Framers were not native-born/native/natural-born to the US.
James McHenry was born at Ballymena, County Antrim, Ireland, in 1753.
William Paterson (Patterson) was born in County Antrim, Ireland, in 1745.
Alexander Hamilton was born in 1757 on the island of Nevis, in the Leeward group, British West Indies.
William Davie was born in Egremont, Cumberlandshire, England, on June 20, 1756.
Thomas Fitzsimons (FitzSimons; Fitzsimmons) was born in Ireland in 1741.
Robert Morris was born at or near Liverpool, England, in 1734.
James Wilson was born in 1741 or 1742 at Carskerdo, near St. Andrews, Scotland, and educated at the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh.
Pierce Butler was born in 1744 in County Carlow, Ireland.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/founding-fathers
Article II Facts:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm
A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of a Constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” to Other Kinds of “Citizens” of the United States:
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/
All Trees Are Plants But Not All Plants Our Trees:
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Five Citizenship Terms in U.S. Constitution:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
A Lesson From History:
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2021/11/18/a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president-the-founders-and-framers-emphatically-decided-no-it-is-not-by-cdr-charles-kerch/
I Turned Over A New Leaf In 2022! I Will No Longer Argue With Imbeciles! I Will Present Truth, And If You Challenge It, And Your Only Proof Is, “Because I Said So!”, Save Your Breath, It Has No Value!
I, And Others, Have Been Trying Since 2007 Sharing Truth About Ineligibility With Documentation, And Only A Few Listened!!!
Barry Soetoro’s (aka @BarackObama ) Entire Life Is A Lie In One Form Or Another! Don’t Stop At Where He Was Born, It’s Not The Only Requirement Of ArtIISec1Cls5 Natural Born Citizen!
The Key Here Is “born to citizen Parents”, And For You Word Twisting Progressive Dummies Out There, BOTH PARENTS HAD 2B CITIZENS At Barry’s, Marco’s, Bobby’s, Ted’s, Kamala’s Birth 2B Eligible! @realDonaldTrump #1POdNamVet #KAG! #WWG1WGA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5oIW5lPsfZM
There is also the timeline to consider when evaluating the Natural Born status of Article 2.
Article 2 was written and ratified nearly 50 years before the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. As we all SHOULD know, article 2 set the requirements for presidential eligibility as a “Natural Born” citizen unless you were grandfathered in because there were no children of age 35 at the time of the writing.
This clause, was so defined to ensure loyalty to the United States of America for all time. It (to me) clearly establishes that a Natural Born citizen is a certain kind of person not defined anywhere else in the Constitution at that time. By the fact and time of the writing, NEEDING to be Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution clearly indicated an exception to needing 2 Citizen parents. This is the ONLY reference to a special Citizen requirement in ALL of the Constitution at the time of it’s adoption, is 1786.
The Amendments which were NOT ratified until 1826, proposed the Naturalisation of people via legal means. When this Amendment or change took place, NOTHING was done to modify, alter, or remove the Article 2 Natural Born requirement for presidential qualification.
PLUS, Senate resolution 511 challenges Senator McCain’s status as a Natural Born citizen, because he was born in Panama to two Citizen parentS. The 111th Congress Speaker Pelosi presiding, passed this resolution indicating LEGALLY that a Natural Born Citizen as McCain was determined as MUST be a Person Born of TWO Citizen Parents, on the Soil. This criteria was NEVER applied to Obama.
This Criteria has also NOT been applied to Kamala Harris, who is not qualified under the 20th Amendment. She is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because (and it is not a secret) her parents were NOT citizen of any sort at the time of her birth in the USA. Two parents on the soil.
These crimes are punishable under Title 18 Chapter 43 False Personation.
S.R. 511 was a non-binding resolution. It had no legal weight.
S.R. said McCain was a natural born citizen. It did not say only those with two citizen parents are natural born citizens.
From the below weblink: “There were then and still are three (3) types of citizens in the US.”
“1. Naturalized citizens and 2. native born 14th citizens and 3. natural born citizens.”
Read the rest of the story here: http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/classesofcitizen.html
Whose blog is that?
What does that matter? I’d like for you to explain the difference between Art II, Section I and Article I, Section 3 requirements. Buh bye and don’t come back until you’ve done your homework.
It matters because if there’s an appeal to authority, then one has to one which authority is being appealed to. An anonymous blog isn’t an authority.
The president of the United States must be a natural-born citizen. Whereas senators must be citizens, but they may be either natural-born or naturalized citizens.
[Part 1]
Hi Sharon,
Here is more clarifying info about the 1875 Minor v. Happersett “opinion”, a Supreme Court opinion which was not revisited and then overturned by the 1898 Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark “opinion” which said that a child born on U. S. soil to parents who had not naturalized before a child is born is a “citizen”. The Wong “opinion” did not refer to a “natural born citizen” (lower case “c”) or an Article II “natural born Citizen” (upper case “C”).
For that 1875 Supreme Court “legal” “opinion” the Indiana Court of Appeals, which “opined” that all who are born on U. S. soil are natural born citizens, is not relevant for eligibility to be president, although it is relevant to be a U. S. “citizen” until the 1898 “opinion” is revisited and overturned by a sensible Supreme Court.
The “opinion” of the Appeals Court implies that birth place on U. S. soil (juis soli – law of soil) is relevant for being considered a citizen and the association with the blood relationship with the parents (juis sanguinis- law of blood = by birth alone) is not relevant for being considered a “citizen”, and, of course definitely NOT an Article II “natural born Citizen”.
[Part 2]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
1. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
2. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [notice “parents” plural] who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
3. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners
4. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
5. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents [notice “parents” plural] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.
[Part 3]
Analysis of “natural born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett
Consider Sentence #2
2a – children born in (“in” = U. S. soil)
a country of parents (“parents” = plural)
who were (“were” = plural = both parents)
its citizens (before a child is born)
2b – upon their birth (“birth” = singular U. S. citizenship by birth alone),
citizens (“citizens” = natural born citizens because in 2a both parents (plural) are U. S. citizens)
also (“also” = singular U. S. citizenship is derived from both parents married only to each other)
The below article is worth accessing, reading, and comprehending. Then make up your own mind on natural born Citizenship. I have my mind made up because the natural born Citizenship definition is such an easy ‘natural’ pill to swallow: Born in THE country to two legally-married parents who are already citizens of THAT country.
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/14thamendment.html
Make sure you read the entire article and please click on the less-than-two minute video by Professor Pamela S. Karlan. Then, wait to hear the pin drop on the floor.
SUMMARY: If you are not born in the USA to two legally-married parents who are already citizens of the USA, then you are either a STATUTORY US citizen or if found in this USA without any of the three items above, you are a foreigner.
Professor Karlan said nothing about the definition of natural-born citizen.
Then maybe you need to read the article too.
I read the article and watched the video: Professor Karlan said nothing about the definition of natural-born citizen.
Consider Sentence #3
3 – natives or (“or” = same as)
natural-born citizens … distinguished from aliens (“distinguished” = NOT same as)
or foreigners” (“or” = same as)
[Part 4]
Consider Sentence #4
4a – Some authorities … include as citizens (“some” = not all, and not the Minor Court)
children born within (“within” = U. S. soil)
the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship (“without” = no “reference … citizenship” = either U. S. citizenship or foreign citizenship) of their parents (“parents” = plural).
4b – As to this class (“ this class” = parents who are not U. S. citizens)
there have been doubts (“doubts” = some, including the Minor Court)
4c – but never (“never” = absolutely no doubt about it)
as to the first (“first class” = born to two U. S. citizen parents married before the children are born on U. S. soil, the “opinion” of the Minor Court)
Consider Sentence #5
5a – all children, born of citizen parents (“citizen parents” = unity of citizenship of both U. S. parents).
5b – within the jurisdiction (“within” = U. S. soil),
5c – are themselves citizens (“are…citizens” = unity of U. S. citizenship of both parents results in the continuity of U. S. citizenship of the child = ONLY singular U. S. citizenship by birth alone.
Thanks,
Art
Hi Sharon,
My understanding is that the 1875 Minor v Happersett Supreme Court’s use of the single word “native” in context does = “native-born” or “native born”, and also “natural-born citizen” or the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”.
Joseph DeMaio is not asserting or implying this, so I’ll make this separate clarifying point.
The 1790 Naturalization Act use of “natural born citizen” (which implies eligibility to be president and which was repealed by the 1795 NA “citizen” word which implies NOT eligible to be president) was not the source for the 1875 Minor court “natural-born citizen” language.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. 162, 167-68 (1875):
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.
“Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
“These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
<>
Consider the clarity of sentence #3:
natives or (“or” = same as)
natural-born citizens …
distinguished from aliens (“distinguished” = NOT same as)
or foreigners (“or” = same as)
Thanks for allowing a different opinion on the perpetual relevance of “born” in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president.
Art
In Ankeny, the Indiana Court of Appeals, following U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s guidance, concluded (minor exceptions aside) all those born in the United States are natural-born citizens.
No court has disagreed with Ankeny’s reasoning, and several have adopted it.
So it is unsurprising the U.S. Supreme Court has not granted certiorari to any eligibility case because all lower courts that have considered the issue all came to the same conclusion.
All those born on the soil are NATIVE born. Natural Born Citizens are from two (Married or not) citizen parent of ANY method.
This means that if the framers who were NOT Natural born citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption got together and had an offspring on the soil, their child would be eligible when 35 years of age and having lived 14 years in a State.
NO OTHER criteria can match this onus. And none has.
Mr. DeBeaux and Mr. DeMaio,
Do you agree the people living in the 13 Colonies before July 4th, 1776 were subjects of Great Britain and they became citizens of the United States after July 4th, 1776?
None of the Framers were natural born citizens of the United States, as the United States didn’t exist when they were born.
The Framers were all natural born subjects of the United Kingdom.
Duh, thus the ‘grandfather’ clause.
Exactly; I hope Robert DeBeaux understands this now.